Episode 40 – The Kidnapped Child

Introduction: The Problem of the Relation Between Materialism and Experimental Science

Would it not be fair to acknowledge that the materialist approach, although it excludes God’s existence from its explanation of the universe and life, has greatly benefited humanity through science—empirical science—and its many discoveries? If so, is our need to affirm the Creator’s existence simply to satisfy our spiritual needs, regulate our social relationships and secure a good Hereafter?

If we establish that most scientists at a given time are materialists in their explanations, does that not show that affirming a Creator of the universe is unnecessary for progress in science and discovery? Indeed, did Westerners not advance after restricting religion’s place in their lives, suggesting that religion generally impedes scientific progress? Or is there a fundamental flaw in all these ideas—a huge lie we have absorbed without realizing it? We answer these questions and many others in this episode. Stay with us.

Peace be upon you. We were sitting peacefully, in God’s protection when we heard a commotion. We followed it and saw a handsome boy named “Science,” his face blackened. A masked man was holding him and trying to flee, claiming to be the boy’s father, while another accused the masked man of kidnapping him. We heard them both. The masked man’s voice seemed familiar, although at first we did not know who he was.

In this episode we shall conduct tests to establish parentage, return the boy to his true father, remove the mask, and identify its wearer. Let us conduct a DNA test to distinguish the truthful from the liar.

DNA Testing the Two Approaches: Affirming a Creator and Materialism

So both are claiming to be Science’s father.

The Creator-Affirming Method and the Four Sources of Knowledge

The first is called the Creator-affirming approach: it recognizes that this universe and life must have a Creator whom everything needs, while He needs no other. We took a sample from this approach and found that its knowledge rests on four bases, like the nitrogenous bases in genetic material. These are innate disposition, reason, testimony and sensory perception. It explains the universe and life on these four bases. Its explanations include unseen realities whose truth is established through the interaction of these bases.

The Materialist Method: Definition and Claims

Before testing the masked man’s genetic material, we turned to him and asked: “Who are you?” He said: “My name is the materialist approach. Sometimes they call me the naturalistic approach.” What does materialist or naturalistic mean? “It means I recognize nothing beyond what can be sensed in explaining the universe and life. I reduce everything to matter and explain the universe and life on that basis alone. This enabled me to give birth to my son here, Science. You could therefore call me Science’s father—or mother, as M. N. Roy says: ‘The materialist conception of the origin and development of the universe is the mother of science.’”

Wait! You do not recognize the unseen—so you are atheism? “No! What atheism? I have nothing to do with atheism or the ongoing conflict between religion and atheism. I judge everything objectively. Atheism is a predetermined doctrinal position; I have no predetermined positions.” But you said you start by refusing to recognize the unseen. Is that not a doctrinal position? “No, no. I excluded the unseen because science led me to do so. Science proved to me that the unseen is unnecessary.”

The Contradictions of Materialism in Its Relation to Science

Come on! You said you gave birth to Science by excluding the unseen from explanations of the universe and life. Now you say you excluded the unseen because Science led you to do so. Help us understand: is Science a premise or a conclusion? Does it result from excluding the unseen, or did it produce that exclusion? Is Science the father and you the son, or the reverse? The masked man said: “Rather, Science and I are one and the same, as many scientists believe.” It seems we face another trinity: you are the father, Science the son, and vice versa, and both of you are one. Do you not notice your confusion about your relationship with Science, masked man?

The masked man told us: “You could say that Science and I have common origins. I follow Science wherever it goes. If Science shows me something new, I will accept it, whatever it is,” as in this recent 2018 paper entitled “The Naturalism of Science”. You have no preconceptions? “Correct!” You are prepared to change according to what Science shows you? “Yes!” Are you sure? “Of course! That is why they call me empirical scientific materialism: Science and I are one.”

To demonstrate his neutrality and impartiality, the masked man said: “My task is neither to deny nor to prove God’s existence. The issue does not concern me, because science is not permitted to consider it in the first place,” as Dr Scott C. Todd said in Nature. “What matters is that I do not affirm a Creator. I do not acknowledge that the universe and life must have a Creator who sustains His creation and directs its affairs. Instead, I will give you an independent explanation of the universe and life,” as we saw in Dr Franklin M. Harold’s statement: “Let me make it unambiguously clear that, like the overwhelming majority of contemporary scientists, I regard the living world as produced exclusively by natural causes.”

The masked man said: “I will give you a substantiated explanation unlike anyone else, through my son Science. Afterward, if you want to turn to religion to satisfy your psychological needs and what you call spiritual needs, you are free to do so. Bear in mind that I am on the way to solving problems, including psychological ones, by controlling the brain’s biochemistry.” You will give us an independent explanation requiring no Creator, masked man? “Yes!” Are you certain? “Of course!”

The masked man did not know that we were recording these promises. Remember them well, brothers; we shall return to each of them.

The Sterility of the Materialist Method in Generating Knowledge

Just as we sampled the Creator-affirming method and found it built on four foundations, we sampled the masked man to test his ability to produce offspring. What we found was surprising.

1. Excluding Innate Disposition

First, excluding the unseen entails excluding innate disposition, either by denying it or questioning its reliability. A reliable innate disposition means a perfect Creator who fashioned people upon it; as we explained in episode five. That is an unseen reality the masked man refuses. Thus the first element of the Creator-affirming method—innate disposition—is missing from materialism’s sample.

2. Undermining Reason and Rational Proof

Second, innate disposition is the basis of rational self-evident truths, such as accepting that every contingent event has a cause. We build rational argument by moving from such truths to conclusions. With no innate disposition, there are no self-evident rational truths as absolute truth, and rational proof collapses.

As we have repeatedly seen, when materialism tried to fill the gap left by the unseen it denied, it produced myths contradicting the simplest axioms and certainties on which rational people agree. It tried to persuade people that the fault lay in their minds and what they considered self-evident, rather than in its myths. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss did this in their discussion justifying the universe’s spontaneous emergence from nothing. Dawkins says… Thus they belittle “common sense”, a term with no precise, agreed definition, but which in some contexts means the certainties on which rational people agree. About the universe emerging spontaneously from nothing, Dawkins tells you: “This does indeed contradict common sense. But, as I said before, you cannot rely on common sense. If you could do things by common sense, we would not need physicists.”

Professor Richard Lewontin uses the same logic when justifying acceptance of scientific claims that conflict with common sense, however absurd they appear, and when he says: “We are driven by our prior commitment to material causes to create a system of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, however contrary to intuition those explanations may be.” This, then, is their logic: materialism and Science go together; Science is sacred; Science contradicts rational axioms; anything contradicting Science must fall. Therefore, let rational axioms fall.

Also, according to the materialist approach, which relies on evolution to explain the origin of living beings, the human mind evolved through accumulated random coincidences. There is therefore no guarantee that it will reach the truth. Darwin expressed his distress about this: “The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has developed from the minds of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.” Dawkins confirms this too, saying… Thus he tells you: “Of course, rational intuition arose from what was necessary for our survival in Africa. They had to live, know how to hunt buffalo, find a water source and climb a tree when confronted by a lion or something similar. Natural selection therefore never shaped our minds to understand quantum theory or relativity. It is indeed an astonishing achievement of the human mind that at least some humans can understand them.”

In short, he wants to tell you: if our talk about a universe from nothing and similar things contradicts your mind and its axioms, that is because your mind evolved only enough for you to survive, like other animals, rather than to perceive truths. You must trust those whose minds evolved further, sufficiently to understand theories you cannot understand, and thus draw conclusions about the universe and life that you consider madness or a contradiction of rational axioms. Krauss supports him in this. Their implied message is: “Do not read the sacred book of the universe. You are unqualified to understand it. We are more intelligent than you and will read it on your behalf.”

So do not be surprised when we say materialism abolishes reason and rational proof. It has three predicaments: no basis remains for rational certainties when innate disposition is denied; those certainties prevent acceptance of the stories used to fill the gap of the unseen; and reason itself loses credibility if it arose by chance and was not designed to know truth. We explained important details of this point in episode five of the series, entitled “How Atheism Destroys Reason and Science”. We strongly recommend revisiting that episode. Thus we have lost, in materialism, the second source of knowledge found in the Creator-affirming approach: reason and rational proof.

3. Invalidating Reliable Report

Third, materialist denial and skepticism reach reliable report, the third source of knowledge. People’s observations and experiments have value only if the universe and life are orderly and governed by stable laws. When we recognize consistency in behaviour and stability in laws, we can generalize a single observation or experiment to comparable cases not yet observed; human knowledge can then accumulate.

Our masked friend, however, having denied the unseen, had to say that the universe arose by chance, as in Accidental Universe: The World You Thought You Knew. Its author, Dr Alan Lightman, says… Thus he tells you that our entire universe came about by chance. How, then, can randomness and chance establish stable norms, order or laws? If you perform an experiment and make an observation, your observations and experiments do not concern me: what guarantees that, if I repeat your experiment, I will obtain the same observations? That claim presupposes norms, laws and order, none of which materialism’s coincidences can produce. Other people’s reports of experiments and observations therefore have no value, however trustworthy they are and however often their observations recur. Knowledge consequently cannot accumulate. When you hear a materialist say, “I will not believe until I see for myself,” he is trying to be consistent with his materialism.

But expectation of cosmic regularity is an innate disposition in humans and even animals: both avoid a place of harm after encountering it even once. Why should materialism entail irregularity? Innate disposition? We have already said that materialism refuses to recognize it because it is unseen.

Materialism also damages reliable testimony, because moral values such as truthfulness and scientific integrity have no value when the Creator is excluded from explaining the universe and life. No laboratory experiment on materialist foundations proves that integrity is a good to be sought. Researchers then have no non-material motive to be truthful about their results; this poisons the wells of scientific research. Thus the third source in the Creator-affirming method, reliable report, is also missing.

4. Distorting Perception and Sensory Proof

Perhaps you will say: “So you found only sensory perception? That fits the masked man calling himself materialism.” I answer: sensory perception is not limited to sensing things themselves; it also includes their effects. Many physicists say that the matter and energy we see and sense constitute only 4% of the universe’s matter, while 96% of the universe’s physical reality is unknown in the literal sense. They call it dark matter and dark energy. Have you seen it? “No.” Why, then, regard belief in its existence as science? “Through its effects. The behaviour of the things we sense necessitates this matter’s existence. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and this requires energy, which we have called dark energy,” as in this clip of physicist Harry Cliff.

So when you hear “dark” in physics, be very cautious: it may mean that we do not know what we are discussing. They know nothing about it, yet believe in it from its effects. Whether that matter or energy really exists is not the present point; what concerns us is that the scientific community fully accepts conviction about something through its effects.

Yet the masked man begins by excluding a Creator although everything indicates Him, as if effects were inadmissible unless the thing itself were directly sensed. Then, to fill the gap in the unseen that he created, he speaks of extraterrestrials who seeded life, multiple universes explaining fine-tuning, and similar claims—things no one sensed and for which there is no effect. Materialism contradicts the sound definition of perception as sensing a thing or its effects, while offering fantasies that clash with perception. Thus the fourth and final source of knowledge, sensory proof, is absent.

We find no generator of knowledge in the masked man’s sample. It is completely sterile and cannot produce the beautiful child Science whose fatherhood he claims.

Genetic Testing Science (Experimental Science)

We have tested the Creator-affirming method and the masked man. Before giving our final judgement, let us take a sample from the child, Science, and see which claimant’s features appear in it.

Until now, we have used the foreign word “Science” for brevity, because its Arabic translation is not a single word: it is “observational and experimental knowledge”. Such knowledge existed before the term “science” was coined and among peoples other than those who coined it, as we shall see. From now on, whether we say “science” or “empirical science”, we mean the same thing.

We took a sample from Science and asked ourselves: what is science? After a year drafting a definition, the British Science Council offered what it described as perhaps the first official definition published in history: science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world through a systematic methodology based on evidence. Knowledge, understanding, and evidence all rely on reason—and reason has no reliability under materialist foundations.

How did the British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley define science? He was nicknamed “Darwin’s bulldog”—Darwin’s own bulldog—because of his fervent enthusiasm and devotion to Darwin. He said: “Science is simply common sense at its best: rigorously accurate in observation and merciless toward logical fallacy.” Common sense, which we have seen them end up rejecting! As for logical fallacies, we have seen that materialist evolution is the best example of a myth bringing together every kind of logical fallacy. We have not even finished the list: we have reached the thirteenth fallacy.

Experimental science formulates hypotheses and establishes laws and theories. Dominique Lecourt says so in philosophy of science. What is a scientific theory? The United States National Academy of Sciences defines it as a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that integrates facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Science Relies on the Creator-Affirming Sources of Knowledge

Consider that definition briefly. “A theory is an explanation supported by evidence”: reason must judge that something is evidence. It integrates “facts”: as explained in “How Atheism Destroys Reason and Science,” absolute fact requires affirming a Creator, while denying Him leads to relativism. It integrates “laws,” which assume regularity and stable cosmic norms, not randomness; “inferences,” which need reason and inference from a sensible effect to what is not sensed; and “tested hypotheses,” whose results we know by the reliable reports of researchers. The definition is filled with innate disposition, reason, report, and perception in the broad sense that includes effects.

A Practical Model of Scientific Research

So that our discussion does not remain theoretical, let us examine a model from experimental science and consider the child’s face: do we find the features of the Creator-affirming method or the materialist method?

In 2007 I began, with colleagues in Jordan, a research journey in wound healing. It began with studying the molecular structure of two substances. But did we—or anyone—see their molecular structure with our eyes? No. A substance’s molecular structure is inferred from its sensible effects, even if it is not itself sensed, through analytical and organic chemistry.

Numerous studies indicated that the two substances could assist wound healing. Because published research on one was limited, we verified the property ourselves using a strict animal-model methodology and published the results in an international scientific journal. Through perception and reason we noticed a shared component, then inferred that it might be the cause of their helpful effect, because we accept the innate principle of causality: the Creator made every event have a cause. We inferred that other compounds containing that component could also help healing, although other properties might weaken that effect; the component still made them worth testing.

We used software to determine the compounds’ three-dimensional forms, entered roughly forty drugs, and it ranked them by their similarity to the component we had noticed in the first two compounds. We tested them in order of priority on wounds created in animals. How did we know the value of chemical, microscopic, and mechanical tests? From prior experiments. Since the universe proceeds by stable norms, we can expect their benefit in our case, build upon them, and accumulate knowledge. After a long journey we established that two compounds improved the quality of healed wounds, published the results in an American journal, and obtained two patents.

But why do journals publish such experimental results? What do they mean for humanity? Every journal starts from consistency in the behaviour of things and stability in norms, so that others can build on the experiment and benefit. Otherwise citations and references at the bottom of every paper have no value if norms are not regular and if reliable report is, as materialism requires, of no use.

Every real scientific study observes causal relations between things or their effects. It begins with conviction that this universe has truths and norms, relies on other researchers’ reports after checking and correcting those reports as necessary, and uses reason throughout: causality, innate disposition, reason, report, checking the report, stable norms, perception, sensory effect, and experiment. Do these show the features of the Creator-affirming method or of materialism?

The Court’s Judgement: Returning Science to Its True Father

The judgement is therefore to recover the kidnapped child, Science—experimental science—from the masked man called materialism and return him to his true father, the Creator-affirming method. We reached this by four steps: identifying the method’s sources of knowledge; exposing materialism’s confusion about its relation to Science; showing the damage to knowledge’s sources in materialism; and showing Science’s complete reliance on the Creator-affirming sources.

The Materialist Method Is a Parasitic Virus

But how did the masked man deceive many people and persuade them, despite his sterility, that he was Science’s true father? Look at the creatures most like him: viruses. A harmful virus brings no benefit and has no independent means of survival or reproduction; away from living bodies it is not classified as alive. To multiply it hijacks living cells—commits piracy, injects its genetic material, and this material gives rise to something like a copy that inserts itself into the cell’s genetic material. The cellular readers are deceived and read the viral copy as they read the cell’s own material, producing more virus that invades other cells, corrupts them, and benefits none.

This is exactly the materialist method. When we hold it to its starting premise—denying the unseen—all generators of knowledge collapse beneath it and it hangs in the air. It therefore has to pirate a complete method. The virus of materialism injects its harmful genetic material into human souls. These souls are like cells. Souls are like cells; the Creator-affirming method is their original genetic material, with readers that translate it into proteins. By their created nature, souls are equipped with an innate affirmation of the Creator. Materialism slips its genetic material deceptively into them, so the readers process both the knowledge-generating material in those souls, together with the material of the virus—the virus of materialism, producing a mixture of useful proteins and harmful new viral copies.

When naive people see someone infected by materialism producing useful science, they think it comes from the virus, especially because that science is mixed with materialist delirium just as viral products mix with the cell’s original products. On examination, every good produced by such a person is due to the Creator-affirming method originally present within him; his evil and corruption come from the virus of materialism. No beneficial theory or discovery can be founded on materialism: whatever is beneficial rests in practice on contradicting materialism, that is, on stealing from the Creator-affirming approach.

Refuting the Claims of Materialism

It is not a scientific method to bring me names of materialist scientists and have me answer with names of Muslim and non-Muslim believers in creation—Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, and Max Planck. The correct inquiry is to seek the generators of useful science in either the materialist or the Creator-affirmer. Bring one beneficial study that began with belief in a random universe without stable norms, or one discovery owed to denying innate principles and rational certainties.

Liberation from Religion and Scientific Progress

You may say: “Yes, the West advanced when it was freed from religion.” From which religion? It was freed from false unseen claims opposing reason and innate disposition and transmitted through unreliable report; it was freed from unjust restraint of reason and from the church’s God-of-the-gaps practice. That liberation did help. But afterward people proceeded from innate certainties and rational premises belonging to the Creator-affirming method, even when their tongues denied it, and built on the achievements of earlier scholars who had escaped the virus of materialism.

Distinguishing Persons from the Method

People are vessels in which many inputs mix to produce an output, and those inputs may contradict one another. A person may proclaim materialism while every practice in scientific inquiry contradicts materialism and its consequences of abolishing innate disposition and reason. He may be diligent in observation and experiment. If the final output is a discovery or achievement, should it be attributed to the materialism he claims with his tongue while denying it through scientific conduct?

Imagine a researcher publishing: “After surveying famous biologists, I found that most lie in their daily lives; this proves that lying causes scientific success and distinction.” Is that scientific reasoning or a joke? Only with the heralds of materialism does such a joke become science, deceiving people and killing their discernment so they think superficially. We do not say experimental science is the product of scientists who affirm creation, nor do we care to count affirmers and deniers. We say that useful science in any scientist is the product of commitment in research to the generators of knowledge in the Creator-affirming method, whether he admits, denies, notices, or fails to notice that commitment.

Imagine the naive person who says, “Most scientists are materialists, which shows that materialism causes progress in science!” Imagine him living in those centuries when Muslims led science while Europe sank into ignorance and backwardness. What would our friend have said? What would he have said had he read Robert Briffault’s refutation, in The Making of Humanity, of the claim that Bacon laid the foundations of empirical science? Briffault says: “Roger Bacon studied Arabic and Arab science at the Oxford school, under successors of the Muslim Arab teachers in Spain. Neither Roger Bacon nor his later namesake has the right to be credited with inventing the experimental method. Roger Bacon was merely one of the emissaries of Muslim empirical science and methodology to Christian Europe.”

Our task in this episode was to attribute Science to the Creator-affirming approach originally present in people’s souls, rather than to the people themselves, even if materialism’s virus affected them until they spoke nonsense. You might ask: “Why collect anomalous statements from Lewontin, Dawkins, Krauss and the like? You believers have anomalous sayings from your shaykhs too, and I could collect them for you!” I answer: the statements we cite from materialists are the natural product of their materialism. They are its embodiment, not departures from it. The statements you would collect from some people affiliated with the approach of faith, however, depart from that approach: they represent those people, not the approach. Likewise, if a materialist scientist says, “I do not deny rational axioms or doubt reason’s reliability,” we say: “Good. But acknowledge that this contradicts your materialist principles, which inevitably lead to denying all this.”

We now know how the masked man made people think experimental science was his child. He pirated like a virus and blackened the child’s face with soot to conceal its true features, so people accepted the false claim of fatherhood. They often use phrases that mix the truths of Science with materialist nonsense as though they were one. A paper may list among Western experimental science’s assumptions that the universe formed by chance, from its smallest to largest structures, through discoverable natural laws. The end of that sentence refutes its beginning: formation by chance is materialist delirium, whereas discoverable laws belong to experimental science, the child of the Creator-affirming method that believes in regularity and stability.

For all these reasons, the materialist method is a great lie. We called it a “method” only by concession; it has no independent entity. Its accurate description is the “virus of materialism.” It has contributed to Science only as harmful viruses contribute. It has corrupted the integrity of many materialist researchers, leading to falsified results that cost humanity lives, time, and effort; it has distorted science’s results to serve its predetermined aim of denying true unseen realities. We saw striking examples in the episode “Falsifying Science: Homosexuality as an Example” and in the models of pseudoscience examined in this series. The virus of materialism then harnessed part of science for destruction and aggression. Under materialism even perception is not safe: it made nothing unlawful and nothing lawful, so people consume intoxicants, drugs, and hallucinogens and see and hear illusions. No religion, innate disposition, reason, report, perception, experiment, or coherent method remains; everything unravels.

After all this, return to the great verse and let your heart absorb it word by word: “And do not obey one whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance and who follows his desire and whose affair is ever in neglect.” [Al-Kahf 18:28]

All the masked man’s claims were therefore lies. He did not produce Science; Science did not produce or guide him; they are not one, nor do they have shared origins. He has nothing to do with Science, and Science has nothing to do with him. Nor can he explain the universe and life independently of every other method as he first claimed. Try this yourself: ask any “materialist” about the relation between materialism and experimental science, and see the falsehood or confusion and their failure to distinguish the virus that afflicted them from the genetic material of the Creator-affirming method rooted in their souls.

Unmasking the Materialist Method: Atheism

Having separated experimental science from materialism and recovered the beautiful child from his masked kidnapper, we still need to remove the mask.

Materialism and Its Foolish Unseen Claims

You, masked man, claimed to begin by denying the unseen. Why then do we find you reaching foolish speculative unseen claims to fill the gap of the true unseen? You speak of extraterrestrials who sowed life’s seed, microbes with mind and will, countless accidental universes explaining our universe’s fine-tuning, and the universe creating itself. Then there is this other joke: [The beginning does not imply a God] [That is so, if the first premise is correct] [Whatever exists must have a cause for its existence] [But the cause need not be God] [Remember I mentioned an argument that this cause is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immensely powerful, and non-personal] [I think the cause is a computer] [Well, computers are designed by people] [No, no, it is a self-designed computer].

This materialist therefore says that what created the universe is a self-designed computer. These are alleged unseen matters, but foolish ones. The unseen must be reached because the story cannot be complete without it; the claim that materialism does not recognize the unseen is false. So you lied even about this, masked man. You are ready to believe in unseen things; why not submit to the unseen to which every generator of knowledge points, reached through a disciplined method rather than through unrestrained foolish claims with neither rule nor coherence?

Materialism and Atheism: The Real Face

At the beginning you claimed to be objective and neutral, with no prior decisions, following Science wherever it went. Why not then affirm the Creator to whom Science and its sources of knowledge point? Here the masked man trembles, his mask falls, and his real face is exposed. Through Lewontin he says, “We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”; through Harold, “We must reject, as a matter of principle, intelligent design as an alternative to chance”; through Todd, “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, that hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not natural”; and through Daniel Dennett, “I adopt what looks like a creed: we must avoid admitting dualism—the existence of realities other than matter—at any cost.” Literally, at any cost!

Aha—the real face has finally appeared. You are only atheism: we drove you out by the door, and you returned through the window masked, placing the kidnapped child in front of you to beautify your ugliness. Promises of neutrality and of avoiding conflict between religion and atheism were lies covering your reality. You believed in false unseen things and disbelieved in the true unseen, becoming among those described by “And they who believe in falsehood and disbelieve in Allah—it is those who are the losers.” [Al-‘Ankabut 29:52]

You denied innate disposition, attacked reason, denied certainties, rejected regular norms, and suspended the indication of sensible effects—all to deny the Creator. We recognized you from your voice from the start, but gave you time and drew you out until you testified against yourself: “And you will surely know them by the tone of their speech.” [Muhammad 47:30]. Yes: materialism is only recycled atheism.

Conclusion and Summary

In this episode, brothers, we established very important truths. We corrected Science’s parentage and judged that it belongs to its true father, the Creator-affirming method, which builds knowledge on innate disposition, reason, report, and perception. We discovered that attributing experimental science to materialism is a great lie. Materialism itself is a great lie: masked atheism that cannot stand on its own and offers no benefit, but parasitizes the Creator-affirming method like a virus.

Now that we have discovered this, many measures need to be taken to correct the situation. We shall leave those corrective measures to the next important episode. Follow with us. Peace be upon you.